Re: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48

From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Date: Wed Mar 08 2000 - 21:44:51 EST


On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> On a UP -- no change except code is more complex
> On a SMP box performance loss without using affinity.
> Take two spinlocks instead of one, more cache boucing etc.

You've said that now several times, and you always ignore the answer that
you are always given: normally you don't need any other spinlock if your
interrupt controller can do the operations atomically. Which they actually
usually can, at least the better ones.

Ignoring that answer only makes you look silly. Don't do it.

                Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:15 EST